How did people not see it coming?

ceridwen

ILW wrote: »

By doing the right thing, I meant not running up a lot of debt and taking on a mortgage which one could afford to pay as well as putting away some savings so as not to rely on the state as soon as a minor emergency arose. The people who did that do seem to lose out. I guess that we have a society which now expects to take risks but get bailed out by others if their gamble does not pay off.

More likely a society where a large number of people seem incapable of figuring out just how risky (or otherwise) things are and feels invulnerable to coming a cropper (until they personally do so). I expect 'twas ever thus - but the problem is these days that people have been taken on their own "self assessment" of their abilities - which used not to be the case.

I've taken risks myself before now - but it was backed up by a combination of failsafe factors:
- I really AM pretty good at assessing how risky things are (and would never do anything that had a high risk level)
- I had a secure job at the time
- being prepared to do things to make extra income whilst necessary
- the knowledge that I had parents who would have "helped out" if I had genuinely tried - but been defeated

People really do have to work out what their own personal position is re what they do (or don't) have in the way of "failsafe factors" .....AND institutions need to take responsibility for checking that would-be borrowers HAVE accurately assessed their financial abilities (which, thank goodness, seems to be happening again as far as I can see at last...).

ceridwen

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Nice link

Dunno if my maths is right but the average FTBer mortgage appears to be 118k.

Any idea what the average repayment would be on that for said FTBer?

Must admit - out of interest - I'd be interested to know. I know that when I had a mortgage I used to reckon that I was basically paying £8 per £1,000 borrowed each month on average. I am curious as to how much each £1k borrowed would cost me per month these days....?

ash28

ceridwen wrote: »

Must admit - out of interest - I'd be interested to know. I know that when I had a mortgage I used to reckon that I was basically paying £8 per £1,000 borrowed each month on average. I am curious as to how much each £1k borrowed would cost me per month these days....?

Just over £5 per £1000 @ 4% on a repayment mortgage and just over £3 per £1000 interest only.

When we first bought interest rates were 12% and we worked on £10/£11 per £1000.

Pobby

Going back a few years, Well maybe 14, you could buy a property, 3 bed terrace in Reading for around the the £45k mark. A couple earning £10k a year each would do it easily. The same places are going for maybe £160k, Do the sums.

ILW

Pobby wrote: »

Going back a few years, Well maybe 14, you could buy a property, 3 bed terrace in Reading for around the the £45k mark. A couple earning £10k a year each would do it easily. The same places are going for maybe £160k, Do the sums.

Base rate was at least 10 times more though.
one of the factors that kept a lid on prices for about 10 years between 1990 and 2000

Pobby

ILW wrote: »

Base rate was at least 10 times more though.
one of the factors that kept a lid on prices for about 10 years between 1990 and 2000

Yes fully agree, but at the same time think it was far cheaper to buy at the lower price than it is now,

Quick working out would suggest about £ 300 a month on a repayment mortgage.

We also have the problem like older folk, you are looking at one, who is mortgage free, annuities down and a very significant amount in savings earning very little interest. We are in our very early 60`s and still working. No pensions in as yet, although after a life time of paying in , nothing like expected.

ceridwen

I'll lob you a "conspiracy theory" for the day then Pobby -

make sure us "oldies" have to carry on working in retirement age - because otherwise that would be one agegroup thats got plenty of time to analyse whats going wrong in Society and then get on and take action to try and change it....

ie youngsters are still in education, the ones a bit older don't want to "rock the boat" because they have a job or are trying to get one - which only leaves us totally free to do what we want and protest against all this and many "oldies" these days still have the health/energy to do so. Hmm....in that case it probably suits some people better for us to have to continue doing a job when we would normally have expected to be retired by now;).

When it comes right down to it - what point could there be in forcing "oldies" to continue working at an age where we are supposed to be retired/and had expected to be - when, at the other end of the age spectrum, are young people needing our jobs?